DQ for Watkins 326-40 (grad students: please also read p320-26 on Stravinsky’s Rake’s Progress, and be prepared to relate both the work’s narrative and its musical allusions to the images collected at this link—scroll down for the complete set).
Please be prepared to respond in either seminar meeting or in "Comments" on the course blog. In all venues, you must be prepared to cite specific passages (by page, paragraph, line, and quotation) in support of your responses—and specific works.
Summary: This section explores the post-war tonal and formal experiments of both Francophone and Germanophile composers, focusing specifically upon the 1920s music of Stravinsky and of Schoenberg. It recognizes the degree to which these two composers themselves participated in the critical portrayal of “history in the making”—that is, that both Stravinsky and Schoenberg themselves sought to portray their respectively anti-German and German-tradition approaches as mutually antithetical: a playing-out once again of a historical antipathy between French and German compositional traditions. Watkins shows the degree to which these antipathy was a matter of perception, more than reality, and suggests that Stravinsky and Schoenberg, despite their employment of contrasted terminology, were in fact grappling with similar questions in the post-WWI period: namely—and again—the issue of the organization of large-scale forms in a post-tonal world.
General question for consideration: Assuming that these composers were both dealing with issues of large-scale formal organization, precisely what resources did Stravinsky draw upon in creating his “Neo-classical” 1920s music, and what is the relationship between Stravinsky’s resources and those drawn upon by Schoenberg? To answer this question, you must “read past” the descriptions given by each composer, which emphasized their differences, and “read to” Watkins’s own articulation of these two composers’ commonalities. Be prepared to articulate.
(1) On p326, Watkins describes a Franco-German debate focusing around the term nouveau classicisme. Messing’s article made clear to us that this term was as much a political or aesthetic badge (or label) as it was a stylistic label. When French composers used it as a derogatory label for German aesthetics, what characteristics were they criticizing? How did French composers contrast their own aesthetic choices to these German traits? [HINT: Think about how French versus German composers thought of their respective relationships to the tradition of Bach, Mozart, Haydn, Schubert, Brahms, etc. Then read “Schoenberg: ‘Onward From…’” carefully; it contains the core explanation for French versus German conceptions of their obligation to composition’s history.]
(2) On pp327-28, Watkins provides a chronological history of a selective group of Schoenberg and Stravinsky works composed in the period 1920-25. On the basis of this list, were S & S aware of, ignorant of, or pretending to be ignorant of each other’s 1920s experiments?
(3) On p329, Watkins cites “a handful of [Schoenberg] masterpieces in which the creative spirit burned radiantly…”. What works is Watkins referencing? And, what does Watkins have to say about these works’ formal organization? Be specific!
(4) Also on p329, Watkins cites Krenek’s comment that Schoenberg’s atonal works had provoked much more shock than had the (later) serial works. Why is this? Hint: think about the specific musical parameters with which atonal (e.g., Expressionist) versus serial works experimented. Was there something about the specific musical parameters of Pierrot, Erwartung, or for that matter Wozzeck, that made them “more shocking” than the later serial works? What?
(5) pp329-31: please read closely, and examine the musical excerpts (grad students: please play these at the keyboard). Be sure that you understand and can explain how the serial method, especially its treatments of contrapuntal techniques, is working in these early serial pieces. Here are essential questions pertaining specifically to the Op. 25 Suite:
- To what parameters is the serial treatment applied?
- What specific aspects of the Baroque suite—as a formal structure—make it an especially logical and appropriate choice for a first experiment with serial treatment? Hint: if you are unclear on the specific formal aspects of the Baroque suite, please review those characteristics via Grove Online—and then formulate an accurate answer to this question.
- Watkins “problematizes” Schoenberg’s treatment of the suite form in the Op. 25, but not because of the work’s non-tonal organization. Instead, Watkins identifies another SHMRG parameter whose treatment obscures the suite’s characteristics. What is that parameter, and why might Schoenberg have treated the parameter in this obscurantist fashion?
(6) On pp331-35, Watkins discusses the Op. 31 Variations for Orchestra—like the Op. 25 suite, Schoenberg’s borrowing of a Baroque-era structure for purposes of formal experiment in the new serial harmonic language. Why is the variation form particularly receptive to serial treatment? Why are both the 18th-century suite and the variation a more apt form for serial experiment than the 19th century sonata-allegro form? Be prepared to cite specific lines from Watkins to support your answer.
(7) Pay particular attention to the matrix on p333 and to the discussion of combinatorial hexachords on p334. Be prepared to explain the significance of both in your own words (hint: these are complicated explanations for relatively simple concepts—read closely, and figure out the concept behind the explanation).
(8) pp334-35 mention a particularly interesting commentary from a Schoenberg radio broadcast in 1931 (e.g., at a time when Schoenberg would have a bit of perspective with which to develop a “hindsight explanation” for the early-‘20s experiments of the Suite and Variations). What strategy did Schoenberg employ to “rationalize” the 12-note theme of the Variations? CRUCIAL QUESTION: how did this particular strategy serve to bolster—in fact to demonstrate—Schoenberg’s claim that his music was in the direct, defensible German tradition?
(9) On p335, the sentence beginning para1 (“It may be concluded that Schoenberg…”) is extremely important. Why? Be prepared to articulate an answer, and use the specific works cited in the same paragraph as part of your evidence.
(10) On p339, para 1 (begins “While attention to such technical matters…”) is also very important. In it, Watkins articulates an explanation for the “larger issues…that consumed virtually all composers of the time”—e.g., of the 1920s. What were those issues? What SHMRG parameters did they revolve around? How did serialism present a “solution” to these idioms? In light of Schoenberg’s comment quoted at the end of that paragraph, why was serialism a particularly attractive solution for him, in not only formal but also in historical terms?
(11) In the same page, Watkins cites the twelve-tone method as “the logical next step” for Schoenberg. The “next logical step” to what? Why was twelve-tone technique (rather than “folklorism,” Expressionism, “Neo-classicism,” or other Ism) more appealing to Schoenberg? For more insight on this, see the extended Schoenberg quote on the top of p340.
No comments:
Post a Comment